Date: Dec 29, 2012 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
On 28 Dez., 20:19, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 8:14 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > It not obvious to me, what you call parameter-free. (And you need not
> > explain it, because I am not interested in your interpretation.)
> > Regards, WM
> If you are not interested in my interpretation of parameter free
> definability (which is standard by the way) then why you answered to
> my question by saying "Here is a parameter free enumeration...",
Why? Because my enumeration is parameter free. And that's because
there is no parameter involved. You know what a parameter is? You have
found a parameter in my enumeration? No? That is why I call my
enumeration parameter free.
> By the way you said it is not obvious to you what I meant by parameter
> free definable, while this is just the basics of definability of sets
> and it is WELL known,
among a gang of big mouths like you?
It was expected from one who aims to refute Cantor
> to be more informed. It is expected from one who say that THOUSANDS of
> mathematicians for a whole of a century were acting fools and
> spreading nonsense to be someone who is well informed on such issues,
> but Since you are obviously ignorant why go discuss matters as if you
> are well informed?
In order to refute Cantor one need not study nonsense like uncountable
languages or parametric definitions without a parameter.
> I think it is obvious now who is the acting fool
> and spreading nonsense.
Of course, but you will hardly recognize it.